Reactions to the final presidential debate (3 letters)

In his closing remarks during Monday night’s debate, Mitt Romney promised he would lead with openness and honesty. Open and honest communication and actions require consistency in a person’s value and belief systems. This is essentially the definition of human integrity. What integrity is to be found in a leader who, to the very end, keeps changing his stated beliefs to reposition himself for political expediency? This is not integrity. It is the exact opposite, which is pure hypocrisy.

Bill Downum, Highlands Ranch

This letter was published in the Oct. 24 edition.

As I watched President Obama’s performance in Monday night’s debate, I realized: Hey, I know this guy! I’ve worked with men like him before (as have most women) — condescending, arrogant, belittling — and I don’t like it one bit!

It made me think of a ’60s family show with the patient father trying to explain something to his petulant, bratty son.

If this is the way Obama presents himself before the American public, just think what he must be like behind closed doors.

Marilyn Dion, Loveland

This letter was published in the Oct. 24 edition.

For some reason, Monday night’s debate reminded me of a long-ago ski-lift conversation with my then-6-year-old:

Allison, contemplatively: “When I grow up, I would like to be a lawyer — or the president.”

Me: “Actually, you can do both. Many presidents were also lawyers.”

Allison, after a moment to process the information: “OK, but one thing I don’t want to be is a hooker.”

Me, fighting to match the gravity: “I’m relieved to hear that, Allison. Those are all good choices.”

David King, Erie

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Bill Downum’s comments are spot on.
After Monday night’s debate, I felt that Romney’s foreign policy could be summed up with five words, “I agree with the President.” Over and over, he said something to that effect.
He was against an Afghanistan timetable, now he’s for it. He was against other Obama policies, now he’s for them.
Who is Mitt Romney? What does he really stand for?
On social issues, years ago, he used to be a pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-environment liberal Republican. Now he says he’s an anti-gay, pro-life, pro-gun-rights conservative Republican who mocks the notion of human impact on the environment.
I don’t think he gives a hoot about abortion or gays or the environment or workers. He just uses those issues to keep the base happy and get votes.
At least Rick Santorum or Michele Bachman believe in those issues.
Which Romney will he get if he gets the 270+ electoral votes needed to win?
What does Romney believe in beside himself and lower taxes for the wealthy?
Is there any “there” there?

thor

Pete, you crack me up. Bill’s comments are nonsense and your breakdown of his comments prove it. 1. Romney is more savvy than you give him credit for. He “agreed” with the President and defused the possibility of being attacked as a war monger. 2. I know what Mitt Romney stands for. I’ve been to his web site and I’ve listened to him carefully. If you really wanted to know, you could do the same. 3. When you voted for Obama, and he said he would close Gitmo, where you surprised when he didn’t. I call it politics and you call it change of position. Should I apply that to the other things that Obama has changed his position on? THEY say what THEY need to to get elected, and you know it. Bill just wrote the same tired letter so many have written about various politicians.

Anonymous

Obama may not always follow through, but everyone knows Obama is going to be, and has been, a liberal.
Romney’s been a liberal, then a conservative.
“I agree Mr.. President” is not a debate style, it’s a sock puppet.
If he has disagreements, he should spell them out.
If he wants to use the military more vigorously, he should say so.

thor

He did. And President Obama isn’t just a liberal, he’s an ideologue. He may never waver, but as president he can’t be that single-minded. You’ve praised the Clinton presidency. He is more like Romney than like Obama. And you don’t like that Romney outsmarted Obama. Admit it.

Anonymous

Outsmarted like; Syria is Iran’s path to the sea outsmarted?

Anonymous

No, politically outsmarted him.

thor

Outsmarted like, Obama didn’t lay a glove on Romney. Romney rope-a-doped Obama, just like Ali did to Foreman.

Anonymous

He did on Israel pointing out how Obama didn’t visit Israel on his apology tour. Obama came back with a snarky response about when he went to Israel as a candidate (he hasn’t been there as president) he went to the Holocaust Museum and a town that had suffered rocket attacks. He said he didn’t bring donors with him or hold a fund raiser.

But did you know that Romney has visited Israel multiple times and has visited the Holocaust Museum and the same town Obama referenced. But Romney didn’t come back and say that he did, because this man has character as defined as the things you do when you don’t think anyone will find out. If you want to compare his character with Obama’s look at the Benghazi tragedy.

And where do you get the idea Romney wants to use the military more vigorously? He believes as Reagan did on peace through strength. At the Academy we were taught we needed to be prepared so hopefully we wouldn’t be needed. And PS. there isn’t an Admiral in the American Navy that would approve of a fleet of less than 300 ships and boats (see I actually know what they call submarines).

Anonymous

Go tell that to an AIPAC meeting.
It wasn’t an apology tour, and Israel is not the only nation friendly to the USA in the Middle East.
Has it ever occurred to you that we should judge other Middle Eastern nations by how they treat their people, what are they doing to improve people’s lives, what are they doing to create robust economies, whether they open their markets to USA and other foreign goods, whether they want peace with all their neighbors?
Israel could have been addressed in one or two questions.
And, I think Obama has visited Israel. And it’s just a teensy weensy bit possible that our foreign interests and Israel’s foreign interests might vary from time to time?
At least neither man referenced the Israeli prime minister as “Bibi”.
What’s Romney going to do when creating USA foreign policy? Call the Israeli prime minister’s office every 10 minutes?

Just to throw this out there…8 years ago I was attending Metro state. I had an English teacher who was as far left as you could get. What Bill O’Reilly would refer to as a “left wing loon.” The class was two and a half hours long and for at least an hour of it, he would use his class as a platform to drone on and on about his political views. “Bush is a war criminal.” “Communism is wonderful; Americans are just afraid of it.” “Chinese medicine is superior to western medicine.” and on and on and on.

During the election between Bush and Kerry, a conservative classmate commented that Kerry constantly flip flopped on many issues. Our intrepid English teacher (and Kerry supporter) replied “So a man isn’t allowed to change his mind? That to me is the sign of not only a good man, but a great politician. I would rather have a President that can change his mind on positions than one who sticks to his guns when everyone in the world knows hes wrong.”

Anonymous

There is a difference when a politician sees that they are completely wrong
(evolving position on gay marriage) and one who shakes him self like an etcha sketch so he can look more likeable for the current audience(Sure pre-existing conditions will be protected).

The first example shows what realpolitic means, while the second shows someone who just says what people want to hear.

Anonymous

Here’s my take on the three debates.

All three debates are over now and it couldn’t have gone better for Mitt Romney. The first debate was the killer for Obama. Obama looked detached and bored, while Romney looked engaged and competent. It was this debate that destroyed Obama’s campaign strategy to portray Romney as an unacceptable alternative to Obama. Romney didn’t scare anyone and in that debate Obama didn’t impress anyone.

In the second debate Obama came out hard trying to regain his stature. He did better than the first debate, but this one was basically a tie. It didn’t stop Romney’s momentum, because the first debate had taken the election from a choice to a referendum and Obama’s record is terrible.

Obama needed a knockout in this debate, he knew it and it showed. He came out swinging and while he landed some blows he lost stature. The death stare he used when Romney was talking was reminiscent of the first debate but rather than detached made him look nasty. Romney on the other had looked like a happy warrior. The President interrupted or tried to interrupt Romney every chance he got, but Romney didn’t let him. In this debate Romney gained stature and many pundits said Obama looked like the challenger and Romney looked like the president. In fact, Romney not only won the third debate he won the presidency last night. Expect to see the poll numbers go more and more toward Romney. It’s over and now even Obama knows it.

Anonymous

I wouldn’t call it over, though The Obama is clearly reeling. But it’s still a race because these national polls are essentially meaningless. This isn’t one election, but 51 separate elections. It’s still a matter of picking up enough votes is these so-called “battleground” or “toss-up” states.

If The Obama didn’t suffer enough damage in, say, Ohio or Virginia or Colorado, he can pull it out. He obviously can slip in California or New York and not lose a single electoral vote.

Anonymous

51 separate elections? Does DC get electoral votes? Or are you meaning 50 state races plus the national electoral race?

Anonymous

Yes, DC has 3 electoral votes.

Anonymous

What Reinhold said.

Anonymous

Nah, it is over. Obama’s economic performance is terrible and this election should be over. Obama tried to divert the electorates attention through his strategy (Kill Romney), but the first debate ended that. So now people are looking at the economy and there is a wave of support for Romney.

And the polls overstate Obama’s support even now. That was shown in a spot poll run by CNN.

CNN found Obama won the debate by 8 points but also found 24% were more likely to vote for Obama after the debate while 25% were more likely to vote for Romney. But I found this to be interesting.

>>The sample of debate-watchers in the poll was 34% Democratic and 30% Republican.

“That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about five points more Republican than polls taken among all Americans throughout 2012, so the debate audience was more Republican than the general public,” added Holland. “This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate.”<<

If you are a democrat and you are sitting on the edge of your seat because the polls are so close, you need to realize they are only close if the Democrats come out in greater numbers compared to the Republicans than they did in 2008 (2008 was an all time record with a D +9. The polls this year have been consistently at that level or higher). In short, you’ve been lied to and this election is going toward Romney. The left wing pundits are not going to be shocked when Romney wins. They will be crushed, upset and angry, but they know what the actual state of the election is.

You believe the polls you like, and fudge or ignore the ones you don’t.
Real polling organizations get as scientific a representative sample has they can.
You guys moaned about biased polls in 2008, and look where it got you.
Not to mention you consistently ignore that most polls have a 4% margin of error, so any poll with less than a 4% difference between Romney and Obama is a statistical tie.
There’s only one poll worth watching, and that’s the one two weeks away.

Anonymous

No, Pete, what I do is always look for the demographics to see whether the results are feasible. One thing that keeps showing up is that the enthusiasm of republicans voters is higher than Democrats, but that doesn’t stop the polls from being heavily skewed for the Democrats. The MOE does not take into consideration that the poll demographics are wrong. It is a mathematical factor that depends upon the size of the sample. When you see the MOE what it says is that 95% of the time the results will be within x% of the results. Right now Romney/Ryan is up by about 5% or more.

Anonymous

You simply believe the polls you like, and fudge, discount or ignore the polls you don’t. All legitimate polling organizations use as representative a sample as statistical science can create.
Your side whined that the polls were biased in 2008, and look where that got you.
Not to mention that all major polls have a 4% margin or error, so any difference between Obama and Romney 4% or smaller is a statistical tie.
primafacie has the right approach, but keep tiptoing through the tulips.
There’s only one poll that counts, and that one is two weeks away.

Anonymous

good analysis.

DR

My take on the debates…

1. First debate: Romney left Obama lying curled up in a fetal position in the corner sucking his thumb.

2. Second Debate: Obama came back strong; Romney took it and gave it back in equal measure. Obama didn’t win the debate; Romney just didn’t lose. At most, it was a tie.

3. Third debate: Zzzzzzzzzzzzz…zzzzzzzzzz…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Is it over yet?

As for substance…both candidates did nothing more than hurl talking points at each other and the moderator. It was like watching an old episode of Hannity and Colmes.

There were a few bizarre moments like Romney’s “binders full of women” and Obama’s long winded, pointless (and irrelevant to the question asked) rant about education when asked about gun control.

A mildly amusing slice of political theater put on to entertain the common riff raff. Nothing more.

Anonymous

We tried to go to the Rally at Red Rocks last night (see photo). We left for the rally at 4 PM. We were trying to get off 470 and were in a line for about an hour at the exit when the cops finally showed up and shut down the exit. We went to the next exit and drove back. When we got there, the police told us the amphitheater was full and they had closed off the entrance. On our way back to home, we saw Romney’s motorcade heading to the event. There were probably 40 motorcycle cops leading the way and another 20 or more cars with flashing lights. 470 westbound was shut off. Perhaps they should have had the event at Sports Authority Field at Mile High. I think they could have filled the stadium.

Obama has come up with the word Romnesia to try to make fun of Mitt Romney. I think we are seeing Romentum.which will crush Obama on November 6th.

Anonymous

I saw the reports on the news. Red Rocks is built for 10,000 or so. They stopped letting people in after 20,000 entered.
You and Romney do know that Red Rocks Amphitheater was a government make-work project that added to the deficit in the 1930s, and therefore was a wasteful liberal scheme that gave unemployed men false hope, don’t you?

Anonymous

Great amphitheater. But it doesn’t change history.

In 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

Forward to the 1930s.

Anonymous

He meant it was an inappropriate venue for the Romney campaign, given they are opposed to government spending on such frivolities as a public amphitheater.

Anonymous

I would suggest Obama give up travel by cars, buses, and airplanes. They all were invented and brought to market by private concerns that got started when there wasn’t an income tax to “spread the wealth around.”

Anonymous

But he can keep his computer, right? 😀

Anonymous

Good point, R. I liked it. Now for my snarky response: only if it has vacuum tubes;)

Anonymous

He can keep access to the Internet: DARPA invented it.

Obamawins

Willard looked like a mannequin with a “deer in the headlights” look! I think he was realizing he doesn’t want to win because he can’t remember what he said from one day to the next!! Don’t worry Willard….you won’t win.
Obama wins a second term.

Anonymous

Evidently you didn’t watch the debate. Obama had his death stare and Mitt smiled and made his case while he refused to take Obama’s bait. Obama needed to get Mitt to look unreasonable and failed. Mitt needed to look reasonable and succeeded.

Obamawins

I watched….just not through radical republic retinas!
That was a smile?? I agree…Willard refused to answer anything. But Willard did agree a lot with the President. I agree…Willard was reasonable…..reasonably lost…reasonable dishonest…reasonably clueless…etc!! And his recent endorsement of Mourdock should go far with women!
Obama wins a second term.

Anonymous

“Mitt refused to take the bait”, LOLOL
Is that the Republican spin, goodspkr?
He kept nodding and saying “I agree with the president!”
He reversed two or three major positions, including no timetable in Afghanistan.
“IF” elected, what’s he gonna do? Appoint Obama as his Adviser Plenipotentiary on Foreign Policy?

Anonymous

No, that isn’t the Republicans spin, that’s what happened. Obama was looking to bait Romney and get him to come across as someone who wasn’t stable enough to trust with foreign affairs. Obama needed a knockout and Romney wouldn’t give it to him. And talking with some female friends, they were very impressed by Romney which is who he was trying to woo. Obama didn’t get what he needed, but Romney did. That’s a victory for Romney.

BTW Pete, did you read the article about the rally at Red Rocks? I wonder how Obama will do at City Park today?

Obamawins

People already know Willard isn’t stable enough for foreign affairs…he’s proved it time and again. And speaking to MY female friends, family and coworkers, they aren’t impressed with the repubs…let alone Willard. The buzz is about Willard’s son Tagg ( who names their kid that?), threatening the President (anger issues in the family?), Willard endorsing Richard Mourdock ( pregnancy by rape is God’s Will), and on and on with the repubs.
Obama wins a second term!

Anonymous

I met a woman today who was an Obama voter in 2008. She was volunteering at the Romney office. As for your comment about your friends, family and coworkers, you need to hang out with a better crowd. Living in an echo chamber is not a smart thing to do.

Obamawins

My crowd is a whole lot better than yours….Mourdock for instance! But knowing you, you’ll try and defend him, being the lemming that you are!
And you really made an impact with ” I met a woman today…..”. Guess what..I don’t believe you, cause you make up “sources” all the time.
Obama wins a second term!!

Anonymous

My, my, you need to improve your reading comprehension. I said I met a woman today who was volunteering at the Romney office. In 2008 she was 7 month pregnant and had just lost her job. She bought the hope and change stuff and hasn’t found a full time job since then. BTW I don’t know Mourdock (I know who he is, but he isn’t a friend, co-worker or family or even someone I’ve met). Your ability to think logically appears to be very limited. You might want to get a physical.

Obamawins

Oh sure, just keep adding to your “facts”…you really are making a change on here!! I see a lot of Willard in you…. LOL!
Obama wins a second term!!

Anonymous

I had to go to an election judge training (my 2nd out of 3 to be a supervisory judge). I didn’t even see anything about it.
This is counter-intuitive, but I think I liked it when Colorado was a safe Republican state for president.
No motorcades an rallies every three days, 90% of all ads were about deodorant, or cars, or potato chips rather than nasty campaign ads.

Anonymous

There’s a second reason I didn’t go:
My really activist days are behind me. I can’t stand on my feet for several minutes at a time anymore without them aching like crazy, and other issues.
So I have to be an activist in spirit, by proxy.

Anonymous

I had a problem with plantar fasciiitis a few years ago (pain radiated from the heel). I got some inserts for my shoes and it took care of it. Anything like that?

Anonymous

I wish it was that simple.
Simplest explanation: My body mechanics are askew, which affects my feet.
I could bear it more when I was a young ‘un.
Now I’m quite willing to let a younger generation take on the physical side of activism.
Plus, my priorities have changed somewhat. I’m married, my wife works, so I take care of some of the household chores, plus play parent, along with her, to two adorable cats.
If reincarnation exists, I can imagine worse lives than to come back as a domestic cat in a loving household.

unbiased

Bill Downum’s comments are so typical of liberals. Every day we have more proof that Obama has lied from the beginning about the death of our ambssador and three others in Libya. Evidence is overwhelming that shows he covered up the truth to enhance his chances of being re-elected. His actions are dispicable and only proves what a weak man he is as commander in chief.

Brian

I am all for public waterboarding of candidates.We should be able to a truthful answer out of them and it won’t take 90 mins.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.